Clinton Campaign Denies AP Report That She Will Concede Obama Has Won

The AP story is incorrect. Senator Clinton will not concede the nomination this evening.

Update: The Clinton campaign has sent out a press release denying the AP report. She will not suspend her campaign tonight nor will she concede Obama is the defacto winner. I just got off the phone with her internet communications director who told me he just received a copy.

So now the AP is falling for a story the only effect of which would be voter suppression in two states? How do these things happen? [More...]

****

The Associated Press is reporting that Hillary Clinton will neither suspend her campaign nor end her bid for the nomination in her speech tonight but she will acknowledge that Barack Obama has enough delegates to get the nomination.

The former first lady will stop short of formally suspending or ending her race in her speech in New York City. Obama is 40 delegates shy of clinching the nomination, but he is widely expected to make up the difference Tuesday with superdelegate support and votes in South Dakota and Montana. Once he reaches the magic number of 2,118, Clinton will acknowledge that he has secured the necessary delegates to be the nominee.

She will pledge to continue to speak out on issues like health care. But for all intents and purposes, the two senior officials said, the campaign is over.

I think whatever she does will be driven by the response she gets from superdelegates.

We will wait until Hillary publicly announces her decision. No one knows what she is going to say, except her closest advisers and speechwriter, and I doubt they would tell the media she is going to suspend her campaign just as polls are opening in two states. That would kill turnout. As long as Hillary remains in the race, we don't have a winner, only an apparent one.

If and when she ends her campaign and throws her support behind Barack Obama, TalkLeft will as well. But not before then.

Edwards wanted Obama to change his policies too. And Obama told him to take a hike. Edwards ended up groveling on his knees to kiss Obama's ring. In fact all of the former candidates are now shining Obama's shoes for free. They got nothing.

Even if Obama says its ok to put true universal heath care in the platform, there is absolutely nothing Hillary can do to see that he follows through. Platform planks are for losers. We saw in this primary that the new Democrats are not big on principles.

with access to the Clinton Campaign, could you please suggest that Hillary needs to make a DEFINITIVE, CATEGORICAL STATEMENT THAT SHE IS TAKING THIS ALL THE WAY TO THE CONVENTION?

A statement that cannot be construed as anything but waiting for the verdict at the convention. These stories are coming out because the campaign continues to make nuanced statements that make it vulnerable to spin and twists.

Nothing is official until the convention. Anyone can declare their preference now and change their mind at convention time. If she's going to fight, fight all the way. It's her fighting spirit that has increased her support. It's her supporters she should be concerned with; not those who have been expressing disdain for her ever since.

Not only should you take it all the way to the campaign, which would be enjoyable to watch as Pelosi blows a gasket, but the campaign is in the worst possible position right now, playing defense against people wanting her to drop out. That is not how to become the president at this point in time. She MUST flip the tables and change the narrative.

move on her campaign's part no matter how much you want to hear that from them. They may be planning to take it to the convention, but to make that declaration right at this moment might create a backlash against her with super delegates who are still uncommitted.

You have to keep in mind that these candidates are juggling the task of speaking to many different audiences with very different perspectives and motivations. Supporters may want to hear rallying cries for do or die, but supers may recoil from that notion. There are clearly a lot of professional pols who are scared to death of the notion of having a brokered convention. Senator Clinton's camp is going to try to walk a very fine line of trying to keep her supporters engaged whilst trying to avoid upsetting delegates who are still up for grabs.

I haven't even bothered to talk about the media's reaction, but you know that drill all too well I imagine for me to take up space discussing that audience.

It allows super delegates to defer any opinions until the convention. It frees them from the pressure of having to declare early and be subjected to harassment. Besides, by August, there will be a much clearer reading of the political winds. Then they can vote according to electability.

I don't think that there is a single delegate at this point who does or will feel "free" between now and the convention no matter what anyone says. Particularly, the supers - they're the ones getting angry letters from constituents and being threatened with primary challenges etc.

this is number 7. If I've insulted anyone, I apologize. If I'm blogclogging, I'll shut up. If I'm sniping, I'd argue that my discourse is less offensive than outrageous shouts of "OMG! Voter suppression!", but I'll try to be more civil.

..." I will be taking the theft of my delegates in contravention of party rules by Obama's supporters on the committee, and the disenfranchisement of Jewish voters, Hispanic voters. elderly voters, and women voters who turned out to support me in record number in Florida AS DEMANDED BY THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN ITSELF, to the convention."

she should really stick it to Obama.... campaign season is over. He engineered the RBC atrocity, and he should be held responsible for it. The only way that this party can be unified is if it excises the cancer that is Obama from its collective system, because if the Party doesn't do it, the gop will have a field day.

That is why she belongs in the WH instead of some grandiose self-centered neophyte who doesn't have the experience to sneeze in the WH without 10 advisers telling him how to sneeze. If Obama gets in we will have a country governed by committee. How sad it will be to have two Presidents in a row unable to lead.

Clinton already has let her supporters down, and the Democratic party and the nation. If she had conceded when it was clear that she was not going to be nominated, she would have prevented much of the polarization we read on this site. But she chose a different path.

You simply wish to see people suspend their critical faculties for the the political illusion of winning in Nevada and Nebraska.

All across the rightwing punditosshere they are starting to remove their masks--Dick Morris, Mike Barnacle, David Brooks all guys who have been quite nice to Obama so far--they are all chuffed that teh dems fell for the games.

AP are deliberatly participating in disinformation. That's how lousy this press is.

At the risk of feeding the trolls, Clinton is not the one who has divided the Party - Obama and the Party have! When Obama praised Reagan - no friend to the AA community; when Obama said he wanted to return to the Foreign Policy of Bush I, i.e., Donald Rumsfeld's policies; when Obama and the DNC engaged in rampant sexism, classism, race-baiting, and elitism; when Obama's supporters strong-armed and bullied Clinton supporters in Caucus states; and when the DNC engaged in VOTE stealing, THEY divided the Democratic Party. Clinton has done everything she can to hold this party together, to her own detriment, I think.

My 77 yr old mom called me FIRST thing this morning abt this story - she was VERY upset that Clinton was going to drop out. I assured her it was not true, and that Cinton will fight for us because we are fighting for HER.

I am sick, sick, SICK and tired of the MEDIA trying to throw this nomination! When did we stop living in the USA???

(Sorry to the rational folks out there for the diatribe - I have just had it with people blaming Clinton without looking at the things that come out of OBAMA'S mouth! He does not seem like much of a Democrat to me. And one more note - he could have freakin' Wonder Woman as his VP choice, and I will NEVER vote for this man. Ever.)

This is O/T, and I apologize, but it is also improtant. I just got an email from Hillary's Rapid Responders that Jon Ausman said he is picking his candidate TODAY, and will announce it this afternoon. His email address is : ausman@embarqmail.com.

Sen. Clinton has brough excitement to the campaign. She's won more votes than any candidate in American primary history. And she's gifted the party the only dignity it has left by not being pushed out by a rigged process and hostile media hell-bent on banishing her to political obscurity. If the Democrats lose, it will be because Obama and his supporters aren't interested in courting the 51% of the party who supported Hillary. If so, we come back of 4 years and work our asses off again.

It's not all the caucus states, just 4. Why is it that IA, NV, ME, and WA are the only caucus states not to report any actual numbers, the others have. You did realize that there were more than just 4 states which held caucuses, right?

Because there are no facts, there is no truth, Just data to be manipulated

or just being dishonest, I don't know which. Hillary has won more votes than any other candiate, even after giving Obama estimated votes for caucuses that didn't count votes, and estimated votes in MI that he didn't recieve.

Be very careful who you call a liar. Check the facts before you look foolish again.

That's my reasoning behind not voting for Obama. If McCain is elected we can come back in four years and run a decent candidate (if the party recovers from its current case of dumb-ass by then). If Obama's elected we'll go through the third term of George W. Bush and then be stuck with him as the incumbent.

I couldn't bring myself to vote for McCain in November if Obama is nominated but I will be proud to write in "Hillary Clinton".

51% of the party who supported Hillary
I'm very supportive of the Democrats who voted for Hillary, and I think Hillary has created a movement of her own, perhaps in response to the Yes We Can movement. But it's clearly not 51% of the party. I wish it were. But the truth is, there could be hundreds of thousands of Republicans voting for Hillary in our primaries.

Superdelegates are smart people, and they are well aware of the Limbaugh Chaos effect. This is still a close race, and the Clintons still have strong sway among Superdelegates. Hillary won most of the big states and is still polling better than Obama against McCain. Obama is still not getting the votes of core Democratic constituencies that are likely to be easily tricked into voting for McCain: Hispanics, blue collar white men and low information voters. (Not saying anyone here will get tricked; if you're already supporting McCain and just posting here as a fake Hillary supporter, I consider you a troll undermining the Democratic party.)

But clearly, we still really don't know how big Clinton's support is within our party. If I was sure that all or even most of her recent votes were from loyal Democrats, I'd be right there supporting her, given she'd have a better chance of beating McCain. If she really had 51% of our party, the best choice would be Clinton as Prez, Obama as VP. But even the Superdees don't seem to be able to tell which candidate has the most support, and they are the real deciders now.

really have to take the responsibility for the loss of the White House this fall. He has divided the Dems with his racism charges as well as the sexism aimed at Clinton but felt personally by many of us. If he is the nominee, he will lose a significant share of the largest sector by far of the Dems, women.

And if Clinton is the nominee, your candidate has damaged her throughout the campaign to the point that it also has made what ought to have been a shoo-in to the White House more difficult. Your candidate's waging of the most disgusting and cynical campaign of modern times has set back the Dems for decades to come. And we will see the effect downticket, too, I think.

is possible that Obama will win if this sort of Meadia propagandizing on his behalf holds up.

But yep, if he loses...in the face of all the evidence put forward against him by the polling data as it relates to his performance in the EV map--Dean, Pelosi, Daschle, Kerry and certain members of the press Corps should be HOUNDED from public life. And their careers deposited shallow grave in a corn field in Iowa.

It's possible that Obama can defy the odds and the historical shortcoming of the party in Presidential contests that stretch back 40 years. He won a map that looks startling similar to McGovern's.

It's possible, but i'm not counting on it. He falls too easily into the same political category as Dukakis, Kerry or McGovern. And he's got some unique drawbacks with his associations on the Southside that we have not really explored in a serious way yet--we will leave the GOP to do that.

that Team Obama would like voters to buy, but you'll find few takers here.
HRC has earned the right to continue to stand up as a fully legitimate candidate. Truth is, if Obama had stepped aside when it became clear that he could not, and will not carry the GE, we would not be in this insane situation of even considering the nomination of such a categorically unqualified candidate.

Tricky Dicky. It's dirty tricks like this that make me unable to support Obama in the GE, if he becomes the nominee. I just can't support this type of behavior. I still hope that the SD's will come to their senses before August, though I doubt it.

The AP's report is what Terry McAuliffe said on the Today show this AM

QUESTION: If Barack Obama reaches that number today or tomorrow do you believe that Sen. Clinton is prepared to concede?
McAULIFFE: Yeah, I think that if Sen. Obama gets the numbers, I think Hillary Clinton will congratulate him, and call him the nominee.

Seems to me this was a result of a Terry McAuliffe misstep, not dirty tricks.

I prefer a more straight forward approach.Terry McAuliffe made a political miss-step. Hillary has always said would support the nominee. She is a good Democrat and I expected nothing less from her. If Obama becomes the nominee, her support will not be mere humoring. That is just shy of insulting Hillary IMO.

However,today of all days, McAuliffe could have (and should have) side stepped that question.

QUESTION: If Barack Obama reaches that number today or tomorrow do you believe that Sen. Clinton is prepared to concede?
McAULIFFE: Yeah, I think that if Sen. Obama gets the numbers, I think Hillary Clinton will congratulate him, and call him the nominee.

The context of the question is TODAY or TOMORROW. Terry is not laughing at that point in the video. I think Terry was restating what Hillary has always said- she will support the nominee. I think it was a miss-step for him to answer that question today when is voting today. He should have found a way to side step it. This is just my opinion. I don't see this as a dirty trick, just a political miss-step.

that interview. When McAuliff made that statement it was obvious to me that it was simply a generic repeat of what has been their position all along...when Barack Obama gets the numbers, Hillary will acknowledge. In fact, he carefully does not use the word "concede".

I feel like yelling here...Nothing has changed! Barack Obama doesn't HAVE the numbers. That's what McAuliff was saying.

The reporter badgered him throughout that interview...constantly returning to the "Hillary should be out" meme. It's disgusting.

The AP story is incorrect. Senator Clinton will not concede the nomination this evening.

Methinks the "source" behind this story is Axlerod -- trying to surpress voter turn out in SD & MT -- just like every other primary since March. Can't have those pesky voters turn out and vote for Hillary.

Nothing would piss off Undecided SDs more than low-down Rovian tactics which not only indicate an alarming sense of desperation but also an undeniable intent to suppress voting.

If it is, in fact, the Obama Campaign behind it, it really does point to how deep a hole they're in and how they're NOT the confident, we're the nominee campaign they've been selling themselves as for the past 3 months.

Confident campaigns don't do stuff like this and, if they did do it, then you can bet your bottom dollar that the flood of SDs they thought they had are now officially back on the fence and no longer returning Axelrod or Barack's phone calls.

And his numbers must be flat-lining at an alarming rate if they chose -- and who knows if they did or not -- to pull this smelly rabbit out of the hat.

But there are certain journalistic standards that go into reporting a story like this. I understand that Obama is satan and Axelrod his demon henchman, and they are guilty of all the evil in the world, but the only reason the AP would write the story is if THEY HAD A SOURCE FROM INSIDE THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN!!! ARRRGH!!!
With the lack of message discipline from the Clinton campaign throughout the primary, how can you find it surprising that there are multiple messages coming from inside the campaign? It's been a consistent problem for her throughout, down to the last day(s).

but those "certain journalistic standards" you are talking about have not made an appearance thus far in this election (at least not in the msm). I say, with no irony, that the Fourth Estate has become the Ministry of Truth.

I think anaonymous sourcing is a great way to advance an agenda - we've seen it over and over - and yet people are still falling for it.

How many times did we hear that "anonymous sources inside the Bush administration" said things to advance their case for war and a hundred other things - things that turned out not to be true, but which the media dutifully transcribed and which served Bush's agenda?

For all you know, the AP's source is as flimsy as "I heard from my cousin's babysitter's brother, who's hooking up with someone who knows the guy who delivers the pizzas to the campaign that..."

has covered the Hillary Clinton campaign from Day 1. She has access to the inner Clinton circle. You are now accusing her of a nefarious plot in which she spoke with Axelrod but purposefully misidentified him as a member of the Clinton campaign. Outrageous and libelous.

where we need to write accusatory posts which are potentially career damaging to a terrific female journalist like Beth Fouthy in order to make ourselves feel better?

One generation ago, other than Helen Thomas, you couldn't find another female reporter with the acesses that Beth has. Now some are trying to destroy her career by accusing her of a plot with Axelrod to suppress voter turnout.

Fouhy to Thomas. I have watched AP's work throughout this campaign, and so have other media historians, and it has been well below standard. I do not necessarily fault Fouhy, as there are filters -- editors with agendas -- between reporters and what gets into print; have you even read Boys on the Bus?. She undoubtedly has her own battles in the infamous AP, too. But AP's work already has been analyzed and found quite faulty, so give it up. Fouhy will not be enshrined in the National Women's Hall of Fame as Thomas is, believe me.

of distorting my words -- I suspect (different from "accuse" -- haven't you ever played "Clue"?) Axlerod is behind this because of the history of the Obama camp of trying to suppress voter turnout with their "it's over" and he "is announcing his win of the nomination tonight" etc. etc. that has been going on since before TX & OH. So, if the shoe fits.

That said, Clinton senior adviser Harold Ickes has told at least one top Clinton backer in the House that "it's over," according to an aide that was privy to the conversation.

Per the aide, Ickes told the Democratic member yesterday: "It's over and the end will be gracious, beginning with HRC's comments at Baruch College tonight. This will be over by Thursday at the latest. There's a large Obama fundraiser in NYC on Wednesday night that will include a bunch of bigtime HRC donors (I bet he raises $300K if not more) followed by a DNC event where big bucks will also be raised. We're guessing HRC will at least appear at the DNC event with Obama and use that platform to being to unify the party. (Ickes) agrees...that HRC has more leverage between now and Thursday than after."

Now they are saying a 'close Clinton aid' spewing that Clinton will change her mind 5 or 6 times before tonight. Does that sound like Hillary clinton? Hardly.

please please please, continue to keep a check on the outrages found in the kool-aid bogs (KAPs), and about the health of the party. We've seen some serious problems with the party, party leaders, and supporters that do not make for a strong healthy party. I would very much like to see continuing discussions of those issues. In addition to all the legal issues you guys cover. Thanks.

I would like to see some threads about the party and it's rules and regulations and efforts to fix the mess. Because the party clearly has some problems.

Of course I wouldn't mind someone starting a different blog that's more about the dire state we find ourselves with a new power structure in the party that is aggressively pushing out core constituents. And perhaps how to battle that new wing which may or may not include not supporting Obama. But even with that bolder stance, I would like to see it from a pro democratic party stance.

don't kid yourself. She will not promote a write-in or third party alternative path. She will support the Democratic nominee. I think she has been sincere in that.

The question of course is how much Obama (if nominated) would actually want her campaigning. After all he and his people have shown nothing but disdain for her and her supporters. So she's probably off the hook for anything serious. But who knows.

is, Exeter, I think: a precarious position, and not one in which Dems ought to be. But that is where Chicago machine politics, with Illinois accounting for more than twice Obama's popular vote lead, has put the Dems. And once it's open season on Obama by the Repubs, this week will be only another in the series of pyrrhic victories for Obama and his Dems that sealed their doom, and nothing more than that when we look back at all this on November 5.

as you can see scrolling down at this popular vote tally link. But I misstated (earlier numbers still stuck in my head) -- as at the top of the link, you'll see that even by the best scenario, one with which I disagree, Obama's popular vote lead is less than 135,000.

So Illinois actually accounts for almost five times his entire popular vote margin. And even his popular vote margin of less than 25,000 is equivalent to a precinct in Chicago . . . a typically corrupt precinct there, of course. So those voters are in a graveyard there.

And keep in mind that this means that the popular vote margin he claimed for most of this campaign was basically based on Chicago. Did the media every say so? Yes, actually, but only some Chicago media. They have seen this sort of campaign before.

So should we eliminate her popular vote margin in NY as well? That shaves over 300,000 votes off of her "lead".
Or was that not a result of "machine politics" or "home state advantage" but the "judgment of the people that know her best"?

"You see you know how to take the reservation, you just don't know how to HOLD the reservation and that's really the most important part of the reservation, the holding. Anybody can just take them." --Jerry Seinfeld

from the Daily and Axelrod machine. Suppression of the vote at it's finest. They're Rove wannabe's. And it's nasty. The Obama machine is not winning me over with these tactics. Sadly we don't have journalism in this country anymore, so that makes me sad as well.

This is a blatant Voter Suppression ploy, gladly spewed out with vigor by the MSM...This is voter fraud and intimidation by the AP. What would you think as a voter in SD or MT? I believe a Fed investigation would be warranted. G*d help us, if this is our future...what happened?

It seems all of Montana's supers are going to endorse the winner of the primary. The last poll showed the race at 48-44, I assume this was a voter suppression article and nothing more. Why would Hillary concede when the race is as close to even as it can be?

The news report from the AP was sourced directly to the Clinton camp, i.e. someone said something there. That person may have spoken out of turn, but Clinton supporters...How does that get turned into Axelrod-Obama releasing the story for voter suppression purposes? That's completely unreasonable. It would do him no good, b/c the fallout would not be worth whatever offset there could be in an incremental gain of votes in Montana and SD, where nothing Hillary does there could put her over the top delegate-wise.

How did you get that from what I wrote? What I am saying: the short term gain for Obama in suppressing voter turnout in two states whose delegate count combined can't overcome his lead would not be worth the fallout from having to deal with the accusation of planting the story (if he did do it) and risking SD defections. As a strategy, it would make no sense for Obama to plant this story.

The AP story was sourced to the Clinton camp. Unless David Axelrod is calling the press and faking his voice so he sounds like Harold Ickes, I don't see how anyone can reasonably think that Obama planted this story. The theory doesn't have a shred of common sense to it.

I would love to see him politically astute for once. This is an opportunity to slam the media. If he wants the nom at some point, he could use this to go after the media, which is going to come after him if he was up against McCain.

He could get three hits on this one, my advice?... stick up for Clinton for once if you want her voters (if he implodes, he would show that this is more than about him and he actually cares that there is a Dem in the WH), stick up for the voice of the voters in the last primaries and finally, recognize the manipulation of the media. Show some backbone for once!

I would give Obama the benefit of the doubt except that he has run a truly POLITICAL campaign from the start, even though he and his avid supporters will deny that he is a politician just like the rest of them. (in spite of his rhetoric to the contrary). His campaign could teach Rove some new tactics.They succeeded in recasting the Clinton's as racists.

MSNBC reporting that Clinton will NOT concede OR suspend her campaign tonight.

However, MSNBC also reporting that they have obtained an email written by Harold Ickes to some undisclosed superdelegate stating that although she will not be conceding tonight, she will "concede sometime before the end of the day on Thursday."

That could have been the top headline every single day for the Obama campaign.

If the multitudes were behind him, this nonsense wouldn't be necessary, the $burn rate of 2, 3 and 4 wouldn't be necessary.

Media gossips, wannabee bloggers and second-rate politicians looking for a gravy train love this candidate but the voters aren't buying into it.

Hillary's a fighter. It might explain why every half-@ssed poseur that can't make it on their own merit, record and work applies more energy to shrieking for her to quit than meeting her straight up and head on.

So now the AP is falling for a story the only effect of which would be voter suppression in two states? How do these things happen?

First of all, they happen because people from the Clinton campaign talk to the press. Maybe they have bad info, maybe they spoke when they shouldn't have, maybe they just made things up. That's how things happen.

The commenters here have seen 5 or 6 variants of this gambit. Each primary cycle Sen. Obama gives advance notice of his victory party & speech. The lame stream media than trumpets a Sen. Clinton suspension, concession, and surrender speech. Then, the blogosphere lights up with its varying versions of how the Clinton campaign failed & gave it away to The One.

After a certain number of these repetitive skams, even the non-lawyers here @ Talk Left can identify the modus operandi. The lawyers here identified the MO on the 3rd take.

Yogi Berra: "It's like déjà vu all over again"

You don't have to be the brightest bulb in the scoreboard to shine your light into the Axel=Rove workings of the Chicago "leaks" to the compliant journalists of our "for hire" media.

You will find the sources for these AP stories in the very same places you will find weapons of mass destruction, the success of The Surge, and the Triumph over al Qaeda. Whatever!

And who on Earth would suspect or impute voter suppression to the campaign that removed the candidate's name from the Michigan ballot in order to later claim it was a flawed election?

You don't have to be the brightest bulb in the scoreboard to shine your light into the Axel=Rove workings of the Chicago "leaks" to the compliant journalists of our "for hire" media.

You're saying that the AP is basing their story on info from the Obama campaign, and lying by saying their info comes from Clinton campaign officials, all because they are being paid by Obama to do so? Do you know how crazy and paranoid you sound?

And who on Earth would suspect or impute voter suppression to the campaign that removed the candidate's name from the Michigan ballot in order to later claim it was a flawed election?

Everyone agreed that Michigan would not count, including Senator Clinton. Are you really saying that Obama, Edwards, Biden, and Richardson took their names off the ballot in the state they pledged not to campaign in which everyone agreed would not count, in order to suppress the vote? Are you serious?

Each statement in my comment is supported by hundreds of sourced & linked posts on this website. And just to utterly blow off your silly comment about the media being "for hire:" Here's a link to Tripod, I don't hold the site as a "go to" source, however the quotations are accurate & on point to any discussion of the media in general & specific reporters. They simply do their master's bidding.

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media."
--William Colby, former CIA Director, quoted by Dave Mcgowan, Derailing Democracy

"You could get a journalist cheaper than a good call girl, for a couple hundred dollars a month."
--CIA operative, discussing the availability and prices of journalists willing to peddle CIA propaganda and cover stories. Katherine the Great, by Deborah Davis

I can't imagine why you have any positive views of media folks in the USA. Many of the talking heads will trade their souls for a plate of shrimp, some cocktail weenies & a glass of cheap champagne. Besides, as posted downthread, AP has been in the bag for Obama since Iowa.

I've wished Clinton would drop out to clear the field, but she's got every right to continue till the end of the process. In fact she probably owes it to her supporters in SD and MT to stay in. The circling would-be vultures on the TV today are pretty unseemly.

This article is quite excellent - reporting facts, not just he said-she said.

Republican analysts, meanwhile, are surprised about how healthy their party's prospects look in a year when almost all indicators suggested they should lose. McCain remains competitive against Obama. He even leads in some key states. Indeed, some research predicts he could romp home against Obama.

It is that prospect, Clinton supporters say, that leads them to keep fighting. They point to Obama's performance in North Carolina as a bellwether: it was his strong win there earlier this month that dealt an almost fatal blow to Clinton's chances. Yet, two weeks after that win, polls showed Clinton easily outperformed Obama there when measured against McCain. 'Clinton has a very strong argument that she is a stronger candidate against McCain. It is just that it has fallen on deaf ears,' said Mitchell.

Um.

DUH.

Here's a clue for all the Obamatrolls who scream that we are really Republicans:

We want to beat McCain. Why shouldn't the stronger candidate be the nominee?

I won't accuse Obama's camp of doing this but call a spade a spade. This is definately an attempt to suppress voter.

As a Hillary supporter it is something I have become accustomed to. Afterall the pundits have been doing it for the last couple months.

Despite that Hillary supporters show their resilience by still coming out even when everyone says it's done.

It points to a very factual point even under the righteous label of the crowned nominee by the party , by the pundits , and by the fanatical zelics people are still coming out to vote against him in serious and concerning percentages.

I am a democrat who will not support him for president not just because I lost my candidate but because this nominee so flawed and his background tainted in a manner thats sets this country back 50 years.

has nothing to lose and everything to win by staying in the fight until the convention.

She will simply get no credit if she drops out earlier -- it will only be used by the Obama camp to kick her and Bill to the curb, and marginalize everything they have fought for and stood for over the years.

The only thing the Obama wing of the party understands is "force": the assembled mass of the Clinton coalition, and what it obviously represents for the future of the Democratic Party. The Obama wing will never grant the Clintons any respect that the Clintons won't be able to demand because of the coalition they have behind them.

I think that on an instinctive basis, the Clintons understand this, and that it is in no small part why Hillary stays in the race: to command respect when it will never be granted them voluntarily.

for their loss in November. And the narrative is already deeply imbedded in the MSM - Hillary divided the party, Hillary wounded Obama by not dropping out before TX/OH, Hillary wants Obama to lose so she can run in 2012, etc.

stealing delegates, planting false stories---hardly affect the race numerically, but ought to really motivate Hillary to take it to the convention.
In fact, I hope she states clearly that she will dos so. Two months of Donna B. sputtering and cursing will be worth it.

and here is my reasoning: apart from the fact that I still hold out hope that she will be the nominee (and I'm a long-time Red Sox fan, so I know about holding onto those hopes!) I am beginning to believe that is the only way that, if Obama is the nominee, he will be confronted with the absolute need to recognize the strength of her campaign and her appeal, and the need to deal with her supporters. Otherwise, I fear he'll just go on treating us as irrelevant and yet, somehow, expect us to jump up and vote for him.

I've felt in any number of previous elections that my vote was being taken for granted by the Democrats, and resented being expected to vote for them anyway. This time it's on a whole different level. I'm being told (even by Obama himself) that my lifetime of political activism is wasted, wrongheaded, and irrelevant, going back to my opposition to the Viet Nam war when I was a teenager. (No, Obama, I did not disrespect the returning troops, they were my classmates and my neighbors.)

Much as my vote has been taken for granted in the past, never have I been so kicked to the curb and disrespected and THEN expected to fall in line. Or maybe he thinks he'll get so many republican votes he won't need ours?

[Anyway, I used to be disgusted, but for the sake of party unity now I'm trying to be amused... but it isn't working yet. I repeat for the dozenth time, Obama has to own this problem, and sooner would be better than later.]

So I am hoping the Clinton team makes a really firm statement that they are in it until Denver. I hope that is their plan, and I hope they say so clearly so we can put paid to all this media hogwash.

what the AP says it says. The problem is they led using "conceding" but then everything they reported is not conceding:

The former first lady will stop short of formally suspending or ending her race in her speech in New York City.

So not only is she not conceding, she's not even formally suspending.

Obama is 40 delegates shy of clinching the nomination, but he is widely expected to make up the difference Tuesday with superdelegate support and votes in South Dakota and Montana. Once he reaches the magic number of 2,118, Clinton will acknowledge that he has secured the necessary delegates to be the nominee.

Is that because that's what the rules currently say or because she's agreeing to that magic number? Unclear.

She will pledge to continue to speak out on issues like health care.

So she's not suspending and she's going to continue to speak out on issues, including the one with which she disagrees with Obama.

But for all intents and purposes, the two senior officials said, the campaign is over.

Of course it is, there are no more states voting and she doesn't want to be seen as divisive. But if it were really "over" in that Clinton was walking away she would concede or at least suspend.

So basically, after characterize Clinton as "conceding" the AP reports facts that indicate she will not, in fact, be conceding.

If accurate, the news here is that she won't be formally suspending. Not that the AP would recognize news.

seems to confirm that Hillary will "concede" when Obama reaches the magic number, which seems likely in the next couple of days.

QUESTION: If Barack Obama reaches that number today or tomorrow do you believe that Sen. Clinton is prepared to concede?
McAULIFFE: Yeah, I think that if Sen. Obama gets the numbers, I think Hillary Clinton will congratulate him, and call him the nominee.

Was filed by Beth Fouhy, who has along history of reporting negatively for Clinton and positively for Obama. She is also associated with Nedra Pickler, the MOST famous pro-Obama reporter at the AP. She is also associated with John Decker, who works for the Sacramento Bee, which was particularly ugly to Clinton in it's endorsement of Obama. This is an attempt at Obama political theater. An atempt o bing about he desired result. Thank goodness she isn't falling for it.

Google Beth Fouhy, Nedra Pickler, and John Decker if you want to see for yourself.

After what I have witnessed this year from MSM, they leave nothing to chance. They did this on purpose; putting pressure on Hillary, and now that she has to deny the story, piss off more Obama & Co, and keep on blaming her for "the division" in the party. They are setting it up for November. They will attack Obama left and right but use the alibi it all Clinton's fault.

After what I have witnessed this year from MSM, they leave nothing to chance. They did this on purpose; putting pressure on Hillary, and now that she has to deny the story, piss off more Obama & Co, and keep on blaming her for "the division" in the party. They are setting it up for November. They will attack Obama left and right but use the alibi it's all Clinton's fault.

the Obama campaign when they told them that Hillary was waiting for Obama to get assassinated, just like RFK. Of course they will believe it if someone told them on deep super secret background "I know" Hillary is conceding tonight.

I hope this makes everyone aware that very often News Stories are in fact public relations media consultants manipulating the news stream.

I've seen this time and time again from Axelrod, they have been manipulating the media almost from the beginning. They pound via the media that Obama is the nominee and obviously the American people are rejecting it. But, one would never guess that Clinton has had blowout after blowout primary results from the media so it's pretty obvious Alexrod with his marketing/public relations manipulation techniques has a lock on the MSM.

I recognize this technique from corporate lobbyists/public relations firms spinning for more cheap labor by claiming a worker shortage, target Professional workers. Magically 110 major papers all cover the same story which just happens to be the rewritten talking points presented by corporate lobbyists, with zero basis in statistical fact.

This is disgusting. We do not have a free press or a non-corrupt press.

These things happen because our nominee has already been decided by politicians and the media and Hillary Clinton is in their way.

There's a story up right now on CNN...an interview with Diane Feinstein. The caption under her picture reads "Feinstein told CNN it's time for Clinton to call it quits."

Nowhere in the story do those words appear. What she said was, "I think after the campaigns are wrapped up today, it is in fact a moment of truth." There's no way you can twist this into what CNN wrote. Their caption is an outright lie.

I'm sixty-two years old and I've never seen such blatantly dishonest reporting as in this campaign. Without the constant promotion of the media I believe Barack Obama would have been finished long ago.

These things happen because our nominee has already been decided by politicians and the media and Hillary Clinton is in their way.

There's a story up right now on CNN...an interview with Diane Feinstein. The caption under her picture reads "Feinstein told CNN it's time for Clinton to call it quits."

Nowhere in the story do those words appear. What she said was, "I think after the campaigns are wrapped up today, it is in fact a moment of truth." There's no way you can twist this into what CNN wrote. Their caption is an outright lie.

I'm sixty-two years old and I've never seen such blatantly dishonest reporting as in this campaign. Without the constant promotion of the media I believe Barack Obama would have been finished long ago.

These things happen because our nominee has already been decided by politicians and the media and Hillary Clinton is in their way.

There's a story up right now on CNN...an interview with Diane Feinstein. The caption under her picture reads "Feinstein told CNN it's time for Clinton to call it quits."

Nowhere in the story do those words appear. What she said was, "I think after the campaigns are wrapped up today, it is in fact a moment of truth." There's no way you can twist this into what CNN wrote. Their caption is an outright lie.

I'm sixty-two years old and I've never seen such blatantly dishonest reporting as in this campaign. Without the constant promotion of the media I believe Barack Obama would have been finished long ago.

is relentless, isn't it? We have all these Obama supporters coming here to instruct us that we must unify, while their candidate continues to insult our intelligence. Then again, Obama and his followers insist we are but one step removed from Neanderthals. However, there seems to be little evidence that Neanderthals were cannibals. And cannibals are exactly what the Obama campaign resembles. Do they have even the slightest common sense notion that if they eat their own there will be few left to vote for Obama in November?

I honestly just want to explain my position as to why I think democrats should rally behind Obama, I sincerely believe that a McCain presidency would be a continuance of Bush's disastrous presidency. But it's difficult to read from websites like this (and as a criminal law reform advocate I respect Jeralyn very much) comments accusing Obama of leaking this concession information when there's no evidence that he did it, the only evidence suggests the story originated from her camp, and no real scenario where it would make sense for him to do it. The AP may have gotten the story wrong, but accusing Obama of dirty tricks has no connection to any facts that I see.

I will not vote for obama no matter what, period!!!
Id rather sit and watch another 4 years of a bushlike presidency then vote for obama.
the economy doesnt effect us at all, gas prices dont scare me, my teenage son makes more an hour at mcdonalds then most blue collared workers in the eastern states, so let the oil hungry reps keep us going 4 more years.
We know what Hillary can do we have seen what she has done for this country as first lady we know as president she would change this country for the better ........ what has obama done for this country???
and please lets quit using the war, cause like it or not most of us were glued to our tv's the first few months and watched with pride for the 7 minutes of shock and awe.

That I should stop posting my view on talkleft? I am a committed Democrat, think that supporting progressive and left-leaning candidates is essential to getting our country out of the mess of the last 8 years. I respect any decision to not vote for Obama, and understand that many Clinton supporters will not support him, but that doesn't change my commitment to stating the case.

Any story that is negative about a Clinton should be published, even if it is based on anonymous sources who may or may not know what they are talking about. Somebody once said that the media can't support Clinton because it would require acknowledging that they have been wrong about her for so long.

There are a few here who claim that the Obama campaign has put this story into circulation. Does anyone have a link that shows the Obama campaign did this? All I see is that USA today says: "[a Clinton] official spoke to the AP on condition of anonymity."
It implies this is a Clinton official.

All over the news and the blogosphere today there are conflicting stories from named and unnamed Clinton campaign sources about a variety of scenarios they are planning. Everything from taking it to the convention to getting out this week.

The one story I've heard that I really believe is that Hillary herself and a few close to her (like Bill and Chelsea) are the only ones who really know her mind and her plans.

Yet others around her and in her campaign are talking to the press. It's not at all surprising someone who thought they knew what was going on spoke to the press.

I think the rumor is probably true and also a terrible idea to leak to the press. The story should not have come out before the voting was done. Which I think is why they are trying to debunk it - to increase turnout (a good thing). However, given that they have said for months the primary would be over after all the voting was done, I would not be surprised if this did happen. After this point, the superdelegates have no more reason to wait. I imagine they will come out for their respective candidates and Obama will have the delegates he needs.

I mean, I frankly have no idea what the superdelegates are going to do, but it amazes me that the Obama campaign has been telling this "flood of superdelegates story" since at least the beginning of March (periodically, when they're feeling down in the polls) and the media just keeps running with it, again and again.

It's so clear that this is still the exact same media that sold us the Iraq war. They have learned nothing and they still believe their role is to catapult the propaganda.

but it makes me extremely uncomfortable to see him playing it in the exact same way Bush played it, and to see so-called progressives cheering all the way. I actually do want to be part of a reality-based community, not a reality-creating community.

is that while Bush was "playing" the compliant media the left was hollering bloody murder. Now 1/2 the left thinks this is a fine idea so long as it benefits their candidate. Almost makes you think the outcry wasn't about integrity or honesty at all, doesn't it?

to the all the faux news, the better it will be for the country and the more proof of their intelligence.

The power of the media needs to equal its credibility. IOW reduced to having no power at all.

The one positive thing that has happened this primary cycle is that a large segment of the population has decided that their own opinion and their own judgement matters more than that of the bobbleheads in the media.

self-fulfilling prophecy. If they say it often enough and loudly enough it will come true, because people will be forced to believe it is true. The Obama campaign has this down pat with the willing compliance of the corporate media.

Doesn't last nights non-secret-secret meeting snafu kinda contradict the whole 10 Senators thing? That would be a large block, don't get me wrong, but there was something not right about the way that meeting resolved (or chose not to, or that fact that only 4 showed up...).

Funny. I know we all read the story about their little super secret meeting last night and how even the four that were there could not agree on who to endorse. We all read how Harkin said that the senators would probably not be endorsing as a block.

That is not how the WSJ reported it though. They left out all of that, including making it seem like all 17 senators were there.

was quoted as saying that "tomorrow a bloc of senators would be endorsing Obama" The point of this for me is that altho' it may be true, we've heard it all soooooo many times before...just like the boy who cried wolf....

But it looks to me from the Chicago Tribune article that it was some unnamed "Democratic source" who presented the SD timetable of so coming out in the early morning etc. According to the Tribune, Obama himself was more cautious in his prediction:

"We feel good about the number of superdelegates that we've accumulated, and my sense is that between Tuesday and Wednesday, that we've got a good chance of getting the number that we need to win the nomination," the Illinois Democrat told reporters outside a distribution plant in Waterford, Mich.

if one looks at what the Obama Campaign asserts and then the reality of what actually happens, I strongly suspect there are many SDs who indicated early in the process (perhaps during February when Barack was a rock star and had people fainting?) that they may support him. And the Campaign took that as a definite yes, put a check next to the name in their column and then got on the phone with the Press to crow about how they "got another one today".

Problem is, the Barack of February is nowhere to be seen in the Barack of today and I bet many of those SDs who indicated their support earlier are strongly reconsidering now. But Barack, as clueless as ever, figures he still has them in the bag, so he talks as if they don't have minds (or worries) of their own and promises he'll roll them out right away.

I don't think he will or can. Too many are on-the-fence and armed with Clinton's charts, graphs, facts and figures showing her Electoral Strength.

Oh, and calling the AP to claim Clinton is conceding (if his campaign did, in fact, do that) ain't gonna go down well with some SDs. Making us look lower than the Republicans isn't the way to win hearts and minds ... or SDs.

The fact is, once the voting is over, they have no reason to wait more than a day or so to announce. The voting isn't over yet, so they should still be waiting. Also, I don't assume that Obama will get the majority of the Superdelegates left, I just think he will get enough.

They said they would battle through June 3rd until all the votes were counted.

To me, this implies that after all the votes are counted, the battle will be over. I'm sure there are other ways to read this.

I am not your enemy. I can have an opinion that is different from yours. My opinion is that this won't go to the convention. I think Hillary wouldn't do it. I also think it's not worth it, because I want Obama to win in November, and I think it will hurt his chances - and I think Hillary agrees with that sentiment. FYI, if it was Hillary winning I would feel the same way.